294 REV. H. J. CLARKE 
manifold wisdom of God was being made known by the 
Church to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly 
places (Eph. iii. 10), are still observable and conducive to the 
expectation of a state of existence in which the Eternal Idea 
will have its outcome in the absence of sin, decay, and death, 
and the invisible God thus revealed will be all in all. 
Tue PresipENT.—After a communication from one of the members has 
been read, we shall be happy to hear any remarks upon this paper, which dis- 
plays a great amount of thoughtful treatment, and seems to require an equally 
careful consideration. 
Captain F. Petriz then read the following communic: ation from Sur- 
geon-General C. A. Gordon, M.D., C.B. : 
“... With regard to sections 21, $2, and 23 of Mr. Clarke's paper, 
it seems to me that so far is man from being ‘evolved’ towards a higher 
condition than that occupied by him in his early history—he is mentally 
and physically now in process of retrogression or devolution. I think, 
also, that this theory accords with analogy as presented to us in the process 
of decay which we see pervades all things, whether animate or inanimate. 
“T further think that as with the early Aryan poet-philosophers men- 
tioned in my essay ‘On Medicine in Ancient India,’ so with the early 
Semitic and other ‘ prophets,’ there existed in them a more intimate relation 
between the corporeal and psychic elements in their nature, than is now to be 
found in humanity as it at present exists. . . .” 
Mr. W. Grirritu.—I rise with a certain amount of diffidence to offer a 
few remarks on a paper which exhibits a great amount of intellectual power 
and considerable skill in the use made by the author of philosophical terms, 
together with a knowledge of antique philosophy which we do not often meet 
with. If by ‘‘ Evolution a Revelation” is meant that Evolution adopted as 
a truth would explain many facts, this, no doubt, may be the case; but 
the word “ Revelation” does appear to me to be too transcendental for appli- 
cation to a system of natural and physical philosophy. Passing from the 
proposition which has thus been laid down, I would venture to make a few 
remarks on the reasons that have been adduced in support of it. The first 
argument is that, “the beginning of the Cosmos, having been conceived as a 
state of things in which differentiation had as yet no place, there is but 
one way in which it can present itself distinctly to the imagination : it must 
be pictured as a system of homogeneous atoms in perfect equilibrium.” Now 
those who are acquainted with the Greek philosophy know that the Cosmos 
is usually taken by the Greek philosophers to signify a uniform order in 
creation: not as a system of molecules thrown together indiscriminately, but 
rather that development of system in the universe in which there was order 
and beauty, and everything was harmonised and consistent. I think, there- 
fore, that the use which is here made of the word “Cosmos” is entirely 
inappropriate. But, passing from mere criticism of the use made of 
